Igno Pröpper’s research while affiliated with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and other places

De wijze waarop diensten en bestuurders in de praktijk bij rampen en crises optreden is ingegeven door hun beleidstheorie. Maar hoe kan zelfredzaamheid van burgers tot zijn recht komen in de organisatie van de crisisbeheersing?

Since the 1960s, the issue of how the Dutch government can engage citizens in policy making has been on the agenda. At the local government level especially, citizens are requested to actively contribute to policy implementation and new policy design. And national government is pursuing direct dialogue with citizens more and more actively. Simultaneously, there is an increase in the number of initiatives from citizens to achieve certain societal goals, for which they seek co-operation with government. Over recent decades, the approach to citizen engagement has shifted from an ideological one to a more pragmatic one: how to use knowledge that is available in society, and how to gain and maintain social support, without losing speed or momentum?

Many governments in Western Europe, confronted with seemingly ungovernable societies and increasing public expenditure and regulation, decided since about the 1980s to diminish their role. Deregulation, privatization, decentralizsation and budget cuts were the result.

This article presents a method to reconstruct policy theories as argumentations, illustrated by road safety policies in the Netherlands. A policy theory is defined as an actor's integrated set of assumptions with regard to a policy. To date, the literature on policy theories has not applied reconstruction methods so that the assumptions of an actor were represented as a whole. Goal and decision trees, path diagrams, and process models have, up to now, not represented all types of policy assumptions (final, causal, normative, and descriptive policy assumptions) within one integrated theory. If a policy theory is viewed as an argumentation for policy contents, a method is provided whereby all assumptions can be integrated into an argumentation. The method links the assumptions to elements of policy contents in such a way that the assumptions are premises in a policy actor's reasoning that provide the basis for the policy goals chosen, for the instruments for achieving those goals, and for the proposed timing. Copyright 1994 by The Policy Studies Organization.

This article proposes a measuring instrument that can establish to what extent either sound arguments or power are to be found in scientific and political discussions. By way of illustrating this measuring instrument, an account is given of a research project that investigated the relation between the quality of evaluation research and the quality of discussion in policy-making processes in which this evaluation research was used

The idea that politics is mainly a matter of power and manipulation is quite common. Names which spring to mind are: Machiavelli, Weber and Trotsky.2 To those sharing this view, appealing to rationality is, in fact, an a-political method. This is confirmed by Hoogerwerf s research, in which he quotes a cabinet minister making the following statement: “Thinking logically and reasoning soundly are soon unlearnt in politics. A carefully balanced argumentation in the House is less understood than slogans” (Hoogerwerf, 1986, p. 271).3

De politieke democratie is een wijze van besluitvorming waarbij alle burgers de mogelijkheid hebben het overheidsbeleid direct of indirect te beïnvloeden. In dit hoofdstuk vragen we aandacht voor momenten waarop burgers hun stempel zetten op beleid.